Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar cycle (calendar)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 13:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Solar cycle (calendar)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The Julian Solar cycle is extensively covered in many reliable sources as it is one of the major components of the Julian calendar. For example it is discussed in books such as Universal Technological Dictionary: Or, Familiar Explanations of the Terms Used in All Arts and Sciences and Fasti temporis catholici, and Origines kalendariæ and authoritative websites such as Timeanddate.com and Britannica. I can list more sources if you wish as there are thousands of references to it. This concept can be made into a complete article by itself by passing WP:GNG. Winner 42  Talk to me!  16:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, more or less per User:Winner 42's argument. This was one of the standard items in traditional accounts of calculating dates in the Julian calendar, and still gets covered in works on the history of calendars. There is an equivalent 400-year cycle for the Gregorian calendar, but for some reason or other (probably to do with its sheer length), it has been far less used. The article title is possibly slightly less than ideal, as modern works may refer to any of several other cycles involving the sun as "solar cycles" - and this can obviously produce a number of false positives when searching for sources. But there are still quite enough sources for notability. PWilkinson (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Many relevant hits found searching Google books for "julian calendar" "28 years", so this appears to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.